The Politics Thread

[sivad40]

https://x.com/AZ_Brittney/status/1852893472057094284?s=19

I can't embed but Kamala is supposed to make an appearance on SNL.

 

[Vee]

Please register in order to view this content

[Khan]

That should be NC's new, official slogan: "North Carolina -- We'll Bite You in the Ass."

How sad is it that we continue to live in a society where women need to keep their votes secret from their husbands and boyfriends out of fear of retribution?  And then I hear folks like former "NCIS: New Orleans" star Lucas Black proclaim how they're "taking masculinity back" for their sons.  Pathetic.

[Vee]

Which is why I think Michelle Obama's pointed remark to women about keeping their vote private if need be was so important. It was a permission structure.

Kamala on SNL:

 

[Khan]

You know, I miss the days when performers on SNL did everything possible not to "break character" and laugh, and when they also knew how not to make it so frigging obvious that they were reading from cue cards.

Anyways, nice sketch.

[DRW50]

I'm really heading into 2016 PTSD now - SNL in the political narrative (with some already trying to spin this as her not going to Michigan instead of New York when she didn't have anything scheduled tonight anyway), rosy polling, Trump seeming downbeat. 

Dave Weigel mentioned that Ann Selzer herself doesn't want to be known as any gold standard, so I don't think she is putting this out for attention or because she's being paid to do so. It does make me wonder compared to some of the early voting reports in places like Wisconsin, where there were claims of a low vote in Milwaukee, a vote in the big "WoW" counties that lean more conservative, that sleazo Halperin claiming that some from both parties believe Harris will lose Wisconsin, etc. So I wonder if this poll is off that means the other Midwest polls are also leaning too much to Harris.

I think I'm just too burnt out after 2016 to ever not wonder when the rug is being yanked away. Everything just feels off and wrong.

[DRW50]

Since they changed directors around the late '00s the actors seem to stare much more openly at cue cards. 

There are still parts of SNL I enjoy (not tonight, admittedly), but the political cold opens have been the worst part of the show for at least 20 years and this one didn't change my opinion. I do think Kamala was fun and she and Maya had a good rapport. I'd recommend people just skip the leadup, unless they want to see a lot of "well this happened" and chewing scenery.

James Austin Johnson is also very good as Trump, as he doesn't try to play him as "cute" or "funny," but I hope I never have to see that impression again soon.

[Vee]

Harris is going to Michigan tomorrow. Whoever is complaining about it is just talking out of their áss and should not be immediately given credit for foresight or presumed to be speaking from some more knowledgeable vantage point.

I can understand being burnt out by 2016. But that was eight years ago. The GOP has consistently lost elections since; Trump has already lost once. And a lot of this reasoning about why the Selzer poll can't be right (or why Kamala couldn't really have won the debate narrative when she did, or why Puerto Rico won't stick to Trump when it has) sounds identical to the right wing cope rationalizations or dirtbag left nonsense I see all over Twitter. The Selzer poll is a gold standard. Either Selzer has massively missed for the first time in quite awhile (which she doesn't do with Iowa polling), or we're looking at some serious good news.

There's also nothing wrong with a Democrat being bold and confident when they think they're going to win. The media tried to dog Obama over and over about this as well as Joe, and they both won despite clucking that they were either 'overconfident' or in Obama's case 'too much of a celebrity'. The alternative campaign strategy here would be some sort of perpetually humble, apologetic defensive crouch - pre-apologizing to media, accepting every bad faith spin thrown at them. And that is not going to win any elections anywhere. We can't live in fear and be preemptively cowed by media, the right or the worst bad faith actors of the left if we want to win. Democrats have done that before, and most times they have they've lost.

I understand this kind of positivity is anathema to you re: politics, but this is not the first time we've stared down a win you simply didn't believe was ever going to happen, including four years ago. Trump is not unbeatable; we have beaten him before. If you have to believe the Selzer poll is wrong to keep your own fears in check that's your business, but it's not matching the reality IMO.

And if I end up having to eat crow on Tuesday or Wednesday, so be it - I'll do it, it wouldn't be the first time. If we do succeed though, I just hope you will consider too accepting that some of what appears to be happening, actually happened. And that not every right wing spin on social media, or bad faith pundit, or preemptive disaster scenario always automatically becomes valid, serious or has any real impact on the general public outside the immediate radius of its voice. It is okay to win, to know you're winning, to acknowledge it and be happy when you do it. And if we do win this I hope you can find that. If we don't, we'll still both have a lot to learn.

Edited November 3, 2024 by Vee

[DRW50]

I wouldn't say that I think Harris is being too bold or confident. I think she's been cautious as she was often right to be and then when that wasn't working as well, has come out a bit more in the last month or so of the race. I just think it's the wrong show to go on right before an election that is so fought along class lines because the show is often seen as an old liberal nag these days, fodder for endless material with the left and right. No one is basing their vote on SNL, they never were (2000 might be the only time), but it's not where I would have gone in such a close race.  

I think the Selzer poll is wrong not so much because of my fears and more because I don't remember Harris or any of her surrogates going there, so if they didn't see it, I think they must have known more than we do. It certainly could be right, but it's just come out of nowhere compared to how he's polling in other Midwestern states. Given that Selzer is a respected pollster, it makes me wonder what is going on with polling in general, considering that Trump has outperformed polling twice and now suddenly this pops up. 

The situation from four years ago is one of the reasons I'm going to struggle with the election until after the fact. Everything should have gone the right way then, but Trump still nearly won, and is polling better and performing better in the swing states now than he was in 2020. 

So much has to be different from 2016 and from 2020, and so much has to swim against (if we believe polls) the public sentiment about Biden and about the direction of the country. When something like that Iowa poll comes along that seemingly has no grounds and even the pollster themselves seemed confused by, I end up being more hesitant about what we don't know and what other surprises, some not as good, may be here Tuesday night. 

I want to believe it can happen, but right now I just go back to much support Trump has and how much history tends to repeat itself. All I can hope is somehow that doesn't happen this time.

Edited November 3, 2024 by DRW50

[DRW50]

There's also a political cameo in this sketch. The sketch is...decent, I suppose. It works better if you've never seen the earlier versions, especially the one in 2019.

Please register in order to view this content

 

[Vee]

It's not about her going there, or even about whether or not Harris wins Iowa; that is irrelevant. It's about the Selzer poll results historically being a bellwether for the entire Midwest, and how much Harris' excellent campaign and yes, skills as a candidate have connected, particularly with (according to the poll) women and especially older women, who remember Roe and before Roe (and after). That's what the Selzer poll often tells us about a campaign/vote trajectory, and that's why it scares the shít out of the GOP.

Selzer has grounds because Selzer simply knows her business in her state and does not get caught up in the pollercoaster games of other outlets. Considering Nate Cohn and others have outright admitted to herding and downplaying/dismissing strong blue numbers for fear of underestimating Trump, and considering what happened in '22, it is entirely likely she knows what she is talking about.

Edited November 3, 2024 by Vee

[DRW50]

You're right about the poll being a barometer, it's just difficult to know how much of a barometer it is this year when few polls have shown the same result for her in the Midwest in places that have gone Democratic more recently than Iowa has.

I see that Morning Consult put out a bunch of polls tonight that have Trump winning all the swing states (they didn't poll Nevada) but PA (tied), AZ (tied), Michigan (Harris +1). They had been more on Harris' side earlier, IIRC, rather than being known as a GOP poll.  So it's another reason the Iowa result is a big question mark for me.

I do see what you are saying about Selzer, and I want to believe it's true. 

 

Edited November 3, 2024 by DRW50

[Vee]

If you ask me (or I'd say almost any reputable pollwatcher) who they trust more, the answer will always be Selzer over virtually anyone else at this late date. (She was also the first and perhaps only who knew Clinton was in trouble in '16.) But we'll see.

Speaking of good polls (better rated than MC, anyway):

 

[DRW50]

Thanks. It's hard for me to imagine her struggling in the Blue Wall and taking Nevada, North Carolina and Georgia, but we'll see. Is that the same polling where the race was tied nationally or is this a later version?

[Vee]

This is today's, the latest and final.

And I don't think she is going to struggle in the Blue Wall - not based on much of that polling and other recent polls that bear out good results.